User talk:Stuartwross

July 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism, as you did at Barony of Moor. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —SMALL JIM 16:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smalljim

Despite my error in judgment and initial banning 12 years ago, I’ve remained a user. An annual supporter. My Canadian family business is a leading editorial provider for Canadian university textbooks. In 30 years, we’ve contributed to Canada’s educational landscape. All of that to say is our hearts are true, not fraudulent.

It’s been 12 years since that. Can this block please be lifted?

thank you, Stuartwross (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stuartwross (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You determined that the Barony of Moor didn't exist, that the article is a hoax. How did you make this decision?/http://domesdaymap.co.uk/place/SE7748/barmby-moor/ Stuart W Ross 17:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)stuartwross

Decline reason:

You may or may not have been the victim of a seller of fake titles. If you were, then the article you created, although largely fictitious, was probably written in good faith, and not a hoax, in which case the original block reason was mistaken. However, even if that is the case (and I am not stating that it is), the fact remains that your only purpose in editing Wikipedia is self-promotion in the form of writing about your own vanity title. In short, hoax-creator or not, this is a promotion-only account, and as such falls under Wikipedia's blocking policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Reply from blocking admin. Show me a reliable source for this (which you had under "Ancienty and precedence"):

The Barony was created and initially held by William the Conqueror in 1086[1] by writ and held by the Archbishop of York from 1086 to 1537 where it was passed to King Henry VIII. The tile continued to be held by the reigning King or Queen of England ending with Charles I in 1649 where it was passed to the Commonwealth (Oliver Cromwell).

and I'd be happy to reconsider. It would also help if you'd explain File:Coat-of-Arms Barony of Moor in the County of Yorkshire.jpg and how you can say "I am the legal owner to the use and said style and title of Baron of Moor including it's coat-of-arms" in relation to it. —SMALL JIM 21:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I had been provided an outline of its history before, I discovered the Open Doomsday project through the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy. The Open Doomsday project (http://domesdaymap.co.uk) is a research initiative by Professor John Palmer at the University of Hull. Their work was to translate and publish the raw Doomsday data online. I was happy to discover the inclusion of the barony of Barmby Moor http://domesdaymap.co.uk/place/SE7748/barmby-moor/ within the original Doomsday census listing King William, as Tenant-in-Chief in 1086. The barony was transferred to my name, as a honor and gift from a friend, on April 4th, 2012. The incorporeal hereditary rights (deed) to the title and coast-of-arms were transferred to me on April 4th 2012. The attorney acting was Ian Pratchett, 22 City Business Center, Lower Road, Rotherhithe, London, SE16 2XB. 0208 chartergallant@ntlworld.com. I removed the coat-of-arms from the article due to the poorer resolution of the image. I have applied to the Governor General of Canada, Canadian Heraldic Authority http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=2 to be granted an updated coat-of-arms for the Barony which I have learned is often personalized by the current holder of the title. When I receive the new COA, I will update the wikipedia COA file. The future focus on my research and updates for the article will be on identifying the title holders after the death of King Charles in 1625 where is seems to have passed to non-royals. It is my hope to seek additional research support from the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy which I have become a member. Thanks Jim. StuartStuart W Ross 21:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)stuartwross

Another admin is interested to see the reply to this. A peerage in England cannot be transferred between friends. There may have been a lordship of the manor, which is transferrable and is not a title in the peerage. If this title passed to the Crown, only the Crown can 're-use' it and award it to anyone. I am also puzzled as to the title for this barony being 'Moor'. Barmby Moor is a moor area associated with Barmby, and a title would either use the whole name (Barmby Moor) or would use Barmby. Moor is a distinguishing epithet, and there are many places names containing this word. I'm also puzzled as to why William I would create a barony for himself when he could simply own the land as king. In fact, he owned the lot anyway, and the feudal lords and land holders were just that - holders owing duty to the Crown just as their subordinates owed duty to them. The only Barony of Moor I can find on Google appears to be a realm in some game environment, and I wonder if this is connected to the 'ownership' of the title and arms. Incidentally, a baron's arms should have a coronet (a bit like a crown, but without arches) - helmets were for knights in English heraldry. The Canadian heraldic authorities are not relevant as they cannot grant arms for an English title. I cannot find a solicitor - we don't have attorneys in England - named Ian Pratchett in Rotherhithe. Unit 22 in the Business Centre referred to is occupied by City Electrical Services. Peridon (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charter Gallant & Co have a correspondence address in Worthing, and trade as 'Noble Titles'. They cannot sell titles in the English or UK peerage as these are only granted by the Crown. Life peerages too are only granted by the Crown. Some Scottish titles appear to be saleable, but these are only equivalent to Lord of the Manor, which is an outdated title in most cases (originally attached to possession of land) and carries no privileges - not that a real peerage carries many now anyway. Peridon (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I cannot respond to why the Doomsday record indicated William as the initial tenant-in-chief. The background provided to me had been that the initial tenant-in-chief was Archbishop of York which persisted for sometime. It was my own independent research that discovered the first tenant-in-chief listed as William. In regards to the statement that the barrister Ian Pratchett doesn't exist, we have experience with him. I provided the email to avoid speculation. The friend may very well have paid for this title but I haven't sought any details in this regard. I agree with the distinction that this is a manorial title which needs to be corrected in the article. I share the research interest in the evolution from Barmby Moor to Moor. The transition after Charles I was listed as to the Commonwealth. The conditions and circumstances of which are of interest in my research. Yes, the Canadian Heraldry has the authority to grant arms to me as an individual. When I received this package and information, I didn't at the time understand that the arms conveyed were not historically significant to the title but the were probably the arms of a recent title owner. I've also learned how provocative and controversial this topic is and have come to understand that there has been much fraudulent effort in this regard. Barmby is and has always been a very small barony perhaps resulting in its obscurity. You will notice that I do not or never intend to use the title or even include myself in its history. Peridon, you seem well informed in this topic and hope that I can seek out additional advice in my future research. Thanks Peridon and Jim. Stuart Stuart W Ross 23:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)stuartwross

(edit conflict) I suggest looking at http://www.faketitles.com/, a website run by a peer of the realm, the Earl of Bradford. He is quite happy for people with queries about titles to contact him (email and snail mail addresses are on the site). I did contact him some years back to check that my information on a matter of titles was correct, and had a correspondence with him for a time. He won't remember me by now, especially as it wasn't under the name of Peridon (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can find Ian Pratchett as a solicitor, but in Peterborough (quite a way from Rotherhithe). There is unlikely to be a barrister involved - they normally only appear in higher courts (very expensively). It's solicitors that do the work like conveyancing, drawing up wills, contesting someone else's drawn up wills, claiming damages, notarising documents, and basically everything else that needs legal input. They also appear in lower courts to defend or prosecute in criminal cases or to act for someone in a civil matter. Barristers are a higher race of beings (or a more expensive race at least...). NTL was a cable TV/internet provider (now part of Virgin Media). It is an unlikely address for a solicitor, especially when using a name that is the name of another business. I stand corrected (by myself) about attorney - Attorney (England and Wales) - but that is not really relevant so far as I can see as the current use is only to do with power of attorney (or the Attorney General who definitely won't be involved...).

At faketitles, look for ptClub. Peridon (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses, Stuartwross (and thanks to Peridon for the excellent research). To help come to a decision, I'd like to ask some questions about your editing:

Why did you create the article Barony of Moor?
Are you familiar with our policy of verifiability?
If you were to be unblocked, what editing work would you do?
Have you ever edited Wikipedia under any other account(s), or as an IP address?
I note that you registered your account in 2007, yet apart from one edit in 2010 which served to stop your signature being a redlink, you only started editing last month. This isn't how most new editors start working on Wikipedia. Can you explain?
How, after making no edits here for a month, did you spot within an hour and a half that you had been blocked?

—SMALL JIM 10:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to both of you. I created the Barony of Moor article after I received the title and in response to the scarcity of information. There titles have no responsibilities but I read in my research that a central value of the old nobility was to preserve its history. My effort must start with restoration prior to preservation. I am which guided my drafting the article based upon previously cited and external and wiki sources. At this point my objective remains to continue in my research and updating on Barony of Moor article. There is a Barmby Moor wiki article that I may also assist with. I am the Chairman of a large media capital company that supports social causes in the categories of public health, education, and poverty. Our first feature film is called Decoding Annie Parker which is the true story of the discovery of the breast cancer gene. We hope to develop a page on the brand, the movie and a new INTL organization I have funded to counsel survivors and their families. I have not used any different account. I've long desired to participate, including earlier, but it wasn't until the Barony or Moor that I found my comfort and self confidence. I do more frequently use the visit and site but I actually received an email indicating the change in status. Thank you Jim. Stuart W Ross 12:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC) stuartwross

You contacted me by e-mail a couple of weeks ago (before your article came to my attention) as I had been a contributor to the WP article English feudal barony. You gave me a barnstar for the article, which you clearly haven't read with enough application. I replied that Moor was not a feudal barony, based on the definitive source of Professor Ivan Sanders, a copy of which I consulted expressly. There is simply no evidence of a feudal barony here. It was just a standard manor as was virtually every modern English village. If you believe it was a feudal barony where is your evidence that the level of feudal relief indicative of a barony, i.e. £100, was ever paid? That was the criterion used by Sanders. Do you know better than an Oxford Professor of history? Your whole grasp of the feudal system is poor if not non-existant - for example you claim King William was tenant-in-chief of Moor. The king could not be a tenant of himself, the definition of a t-in-c is a person who held land directly from the king. You have totally mis-interpreted the Doomsday entry covering this manor. Your certificate may well purport, validly or otherwise, to the lordship of a manor, but that is a very different matter to a feudal barony. Furthermore, coats of arms belong to families not manors, properties or even baronies. Thus there can be no COA that pertains to Moor. The image is invalid. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)) Yet more nonsense noted in your response at the top of this page "Barony was created and initially held by William the Conqueror in 1086[1] by writ". Baronies by writ were not developed until 1265 long after the time of William I, when only baronies by tenure (i.e. feudal baronies) existed. A writ is a royal order made in writing. If created by writ for William, did he sign an order to himself, to be one of his own barons, to advise himself in Parliament? This is nonsense. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stuartwross (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am a longtime supporter of Wikipedia. I’m not an editor on Wikipedia although I am a writer. My story. I’m doing 20 years to life in wikiprison. Foolishly, I accepted a gift for my humanitarian work. A purported title of nobility. With a strong personal interest in its history, the minimum duty of this new title holder was to restore its public awareness. On Wikipedia. I used the information provided by the person selling such titles. Wikipedia editors interceded, correctly and actually helped me understand the nature of the fraud I was a victim of. It seemed that I was also declared a fraud. That restriction which prevent my contribution to anything remains. Justice must have a system of reaching atonement to be considered Just. Can this be fixed? Are there wikipardons? Respect for your championship of truth. ✊ Stuartwross (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What edits do you wish to make? 331dot (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't communicate via email; there shouldn't be anything preventing you from posting a response. Try clicking "edit" at the top of this page or in the section header; the Reply feature doesn't always work well at the bottom of a page. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good suggestion. My contribution goal is to participate in the Wikipedia volunteer support song research. Stuart Stuartwross (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]